Skip to 3:35 for your media moment du jour and for the pitch-perfect reply from a guy whos somehow managed to retain his sense of perspective better than CNN despite having spent the past three days floating around on a giant toilet. If you think conditions onboard werent that bad, read Lilekss thoughtful piece this morning at the Bleat. Scorching heat, power outage, no showers, few working toilets for 3,000 people, and oh that stench: It was awfully unpleasant generally and 10 times as unpleasant for the crew, which had to cope with all that while tending to passengers for whatever pittance the cruise line pays them.The cabins got so hot without A/C that people had to drag their mattresses into the hallways and sleep there. But it was over after a few days. No one died. They even got free booze! And yet cable news was treating this last night, in the words of one person on Twitter, like it was the POWs coming home from Vietnam. I spent an hour watching Erin Burnett and Martin Savidge jockeying for position amid a gigantic media scrum so that they could ask departing passengers important questions like Would you ever take another cruise? and Are you glad to be back? (Spoiler alert: They were glad to be back.) The high point, I think, was when respected financial reporter Burnett assured the viewers at home that she could indeed smell it from their position on the dock. But then, thats been a recurring theme of CNNs coverage: Over on their websites video page, where they post the most highlight-worthy stuff, theyve got more than one clip up illustrating why the term poop deck took on special meaning on this trip. Their inexplicably intense interest in this unfortunate, occasionally snicker-worthy, but otherwise mundane story extended online yesterday morning to carrying a live feed of the boat being tugged to shore. Thats all it was, a long shot of a gigantic ship inching its way towards the coast, for minutes on end. Watch Stewart in the second clip below for thoughts on that; it did indeed reach the point late last night, during saturation coverage of the big disembarking, where you began to wish theyd get back to talking about Marco Rubio taking a sip of water.

Immediately after Katrina, I remember when FEMA reserved/commandeered a cruise ship to be used as emergency housing for displaced New Orleanians and they refused to live on it, claiming that it was beneath their dignity or civil rights or something.

The CNN reporterettes would not have that factoid in their memory bank because after all: everything is George Bush’s fault.

Those people haven’t showered in days, haven’t even been able to wash their hands after going to the bathroom (in bags), so it amazed me that some of them immediately made a show for the cameras and talked to the media. I think my first impulse would have been to find a vat of bleach and jump into it.....I wouldn’t be planting my greasy self in front of a camera.

21
posted on 02/15/2013 9:11:49 AM PST
by CatherineofAragon
(Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)

With a whole ocean of Salt water there was no reason why hands could not be washed! You can’t drink it but you can use it for other things! Nothing like being on a stranded ship of fools!
Be sure to take your own bucket next time!

We shopped for and even priced cruises for a family vacation for this spring, but we decided to put our money into chrome-molybdenum steel, brass, and lead instead. You can get a surprising amount of precious metals for the price of a cruise.

Why didnt Carnival Cruise Lines foot the bill to have rescue vessels get people off of the ship instead of letting them languish on the vessel for more than three days?

I was talking about this with my wife last night at dinner. My theory is that the decision Carnival made--to have the ship towed back to the US, was based purely on financial reasons.

Rather than tow the ship to Progreso, Mexico, they chose to tow to Mobile. This is purely speculative, but had they gone to the Mexican port, the logistical nightmare of trying to ferry 3000 guests and 1000 crew members would've been impossible to bear. Bus transport would've been difficult; air travel would be the only realistic way to get people back to their point of origin. How many chartered flights would it take to get people back to the States? What do you do with people who would undoubtedly have to wait in Mexico for their flights?

Thinking about the associated costs--the hotels, the meals, incidentals, transfers...costs would've been astronomical. Not to mention you have this huge ship stuck in a port not suited for repairs.

So I believe Carnival took the lesser of two evils, thinking that refunding tickets, and offering some other small benefits would somehow be less expensive. There will undoubtedly be lawsuits, so we shall see whether they made the right decision.

38
posted on 02/15/2013 11:00:56 AM PST
by Lou L
(Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")

Why didnt Carnival Cruise Lines foot the bill to have rescue vessels get people off of the ship instead of letting them languish on the vessel for more than three days? Also, to answer that question, a transfer at sea can be a dangerous thing. Those large ships are not designed for such transfers, certainly not for large volumes of people. Considering the elderly, and small children/babies that are sometimes on cruises, I agree with the previous poster that said injuries and lawsuits would no doubt occur.

39
posted on 02/15/2013 11:03:55 AM PST
by Lou L
(Health "insurance" is NOT the same as health "care")

I've never heard anything good about Carnival. Everyone I know who's been on their ships had nothing but complaints.

Carnival isn't a bad line. They are simply a very clear example of the maxim "you get what you pay for". Carnival is generally quite a bit cheaper than the other major cruise lines. This is because, for a similar-sized ship, they will cram in another few hundred passengers. Most often, these are families, since those with 3-4 kids can't really afford to go on any other cruise line. (The Disney line is often twice as much per person as Carnival.)

What you get is a TON of kids running around, fewer crew and attendants per guest, longer lines, etc. This leads to complaints, and lower ratings than other cruise lines. However, if you signed up, it was likely for the lower fares. Caveat Emptor!

(Personally, I prefer Holland America. Generally an older crowd, so quieter, less competition for the jet skis and other cooler port excursions, shorter lines with the lower passenger-to-crew ratios, and often slightly better food and more mature or conservative entertainment... and about 500-800 fewer kids per boat. That's good enough for me. YMMV.)

40
posted on 02/15/2013 11:27:11 AM PST
by Teacher317
('Tis time to fear when tyrants seem to kiss.)

I’ve only done Royal Carribean cruises (Explorer, Navigator, and Freedom), and they were fantastic. The wife and I really want to do the Oasis, but now we have kids and the cost rises exponentially, unfortunately.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.